[Dane]

Likewise, if it had been vetoed people would have said *shrug* "big deal". But in your view, suddenly the dynamic changes and the vetoed bill becomes a political hot button. Coincidentally, that works to benefit your argument (while defying all logic)

Uh no, if it had been vetoed demos would have gotten out the talking points ("Bush is against reform, yada, yada, yada).

The point being a veto, negative press over a bill people didn't have negative feelings about. Signing, no negative press about a bill people have no negative feelings about and didn't think would affect their daily lives and actually do some good(in people's minds) of getting negative political ads off the air.

Yeah I know it's politcs, but we don't live in a perfect world.

BTW, same thing about the Janet Jackson and Howard Stern controversies. If you are against CFR then you should be against the FCC trying to clean up TV and radio.

I know, I know, negative political ads and what Janet Jackson did are not the same, but people equate negative political ads with what Janet Jackson did. They have the same reaction to both.

[Cboldt]

BTW, same thing about the Janet Jackson and Howard Stern controversies. If you are against CFR then you should be against the FCC trying to clean up TV and radio.

Puhleeze. Drawing lines is often complex, but in this case it is really easy.

Janet Jackson's activities are within the question of sexual decency. That sphere is regulated, see, e.g., XXX movies are not regualr fare on daytime teevee.

The CFR law relates to political speech.

I don't think for a minute that you are unable to make the distinction, and you ought to take time to craft more substantive arguments.